Quote:
Originally posted by Ziroc:
As I thought, but when you say "US bombs on civilians as in the Gulf War" you are saying we did this on propose? We singled these civilians out and killed them with bombs? I don't remember that. In WAR, there ARE (unfortunately) civilian casualties.
Now, I don't agree with the USA Sanctions against Iraq, making food sparse, and many children died from starvation.. We should have ended that better than we did. (Getting saddam hussein and flooding Iraq with food and medical help)
I understand what you are talking about, but I just don't agree with all of it.. 
|
What we did to the people of Iraq was criminal. Perhaps one million civilians died from our actions in the war and afterwards, from direct and indirect causes.
Regarding your point about not really meaning to hit civilians with bombs: a brief digression to the law of Murder is informative. To be Murder, it is necessary that the defendant have some Intent to kill the victim. Now, that does not mean that the defendant has to act with the PURPOSE of killing the victim, it is only necessary for guilt that he act in the KNOWLEDGE that death will likely result. For example, say someone blows up a building, knowing that there are people inside. Say his only purpose is because he thinks the building is a complete eyesore, and he can tolerate its existence no longer. He has no desire whatsover to kill any people, only the building. That makes NO DIFFERENCE under the traditional law of Murder, and it shouldn't. It is enough for guilt that he acted in the knowledge that death would result.
When you blow up buildings, or target civilian populated areas, it is a empty, hollow claim indeed that your purpose was not to kill the people inside. The phrase "collateral damage" was a popular american euphemism for hiding our war crimes in the Gulf War.